Errol Naidoo: High priest of hysteria

In today’s Cape Times, Errol Naidoo uses the Sax Appeal story to have a thinly-disguised rant about homosexuals, who he clearly has some sort of “thing” about. Anyway: let’s take him at his word. He suggests that the “liberal media elite” (where “liberal” is clearly meant to be some kind of swear-word, although Naidoo’s grasp of argumentation is too weak for him to realise that many of us might see the media being “Liberal” as a positive) would not be nearly as tolerant if homosexuality, rather than his faith, were the object of the sorts of offences he imagines were perpetrated against his faith in the recent edition of Sax Appeal. He says:

The sanctimonious drivel published in our nation’s newspapers over the past two weeks ostensibly in defence of civil liberties is nothing but a sad reflection of the liberal media’s hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to Christianity.

What he doesn’t seem to get is that nobody sane has any incentive to mock or ridicule homosexuals. Homosexuality is neither a belief system nor an ideology – in fact, the only thing that homosexuals have in common is a sexual preference, which is hardly mock-worthy. Nor, in my experience, are “homosexuals” particularly funny as a group of people – in fact, they’re just like Mr. Naidoo (well, perhaps slightly less funny). In fact, the only ridicule directed at homosexuals that I can recall reading usually emerges from organisations such as his.

It’s indeed a problem if one set of people who make no sense get singled out for ridicule, and others get a free pass. This is perhaps why the “liberal media” sometimes publish articles criticising astrology, homeopathy, crystal-rubbing, etc. They don’t do this enough, to be sure – but they let Mr. Naidoo off most of the time, contrary to his paranoid suggestions.

On a side-note, I’ve noticed that he always ends his missives with:

Errol Naidoo

Does he think that “standing” is some kind of an accomplishment? Is he perhaps making some subtle comment about evolution?

  • lisa V

    Mr Naidoo is “standing”, on the word of God and that has got to be the most difficult thing to do given the world that we live in today. I think he accomplishes RIGHT STANDING with God by “standing” what after all will YOU accomplish by doing what God says you must not do?
    Keep “standing” Errol, we MUST stand for something, or fall for anything!

    Lisa V.

    • Assuming he has an education, I agree that it must be “the most difficult thing to do” – perhaps even more difficult than performing alchemy. What do I accomplish? Mostly, not talking utter crap.

      • Billy

        I know Errol Naidoo but who are you?

        Keep on sitting

        • Devastating commentary, Billy. Errol would be proud.

  • Goodness, Jacques, can’t be easy to write a sensible blog entry and ‘earn’ such silly replies. Lisa declares that we must stand for something or else everything is lost. Seems as if something wrong is preferable to her to not taking a stance (being a skeptic of a kind eg). Not very plausible, you’d want to be reasonably certain that the stance you take make sense. ‘God’ in its various incarnations probably ain’t a good concept to do so. There’s no reasonable certainty, just baseless speculation. As to Billy… well, I know Adolf Hitler… and then what?

    • Would that it were true, Udo – sadly, the silliness is quite easy to attract…